His Record, something you can't dispute anyway.
Then you so begrudgingly acknowledge a measly TWO fights, that you then have to qualify the fact by saying they shouldn't be held against him! as though every other fight he won was against a bum, a negative mark to be remembered when appraising him
He was busy. Talk about damning with faint praise and even then you have to add your
unqualified opinion that "His quality of punches wasn't the best"
and that is your measured opinion of exactly how much credit you are going to afford him?
You are entitled to your opinion, deluded though it is, but you can not pretend that you are the one being rational and anyone disputing your version of events is worshipping Calzaghe or looking to have him anointed. If you were interested in disputing facts you would have responded to @THE PHILOSOPHER , whose forensic breakdown completely destroys any semblance of rationality in your ranting.
Come in here VD
Come in here Fenster
Come in here I am not a TrollHonestly
There have been some boxers whose careers have been exaggerated and only sustained by careful matchmaking that inflates any real ability they may have possessed. Yet I can not seriously in good conscience give even the lamest of those credit for just two fights.
That would not constitute debate,it would simply be hate.